On February 7, 2025, Justice Jamieson of the Westchester County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pepsico, Inc. v. Crystal Springs Resorts/Minerals Hotel, 2025 NY Slip Op. 50515(U), holding that advertising mentioning a business’s proximity to New York was insufficient to create personal jurisdiction in New York, explaining:
As the Second Department has explained, [t]he ultimate burden of proving a basis for personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. This is not initially a heavy burden because a plaintiff, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendants were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. When opposing a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, plaintiffs need only demonstrate that facts may exist to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
In this case, there is no dispute that defendants are all located in New Jersey, as plaintiffs allege in the complaint. Moreover, as the contract between the parties makes clear, plaintiffs’ principal offices are in New Jersey. The Court may only exercise personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary if they transact any business within the state, as set forth in CPLR § 302(a)(1). It has long been the case that a nondomiciliary will be deemed to be subject to the jurisdiction of a New York court pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) if he or she has engaged in some purposeful activity within the State and there is a substantial relationship between this activity and the plaintiff’s cause of action. Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Plaintiffs rely heavily on the Court of Appeals case of State v. Vayu, Inc., 39 NY3d 330, 332—33 (2023). In this case, the Court of Appeals explained that [w]hen assessing whether there is personal jurisdiction over a defendant pursuant to the transacts any business’ clause of New York’s long-arm statute, courts must ask whether what the defendant did in New York constitutes a sufficient transaction to satisfy the statute. Examination of a defendant’s actions in New York is primarily a fact-based inquiry that requires an assessment of whether the non-domiciliary’s activities in the state were purposeful. Although determining what facts constitute ‘purposeful availment is an objective inquiry, it always requires a court to closely examine the defendant’s contacts for their quality.
In State of New York, the parties negotiated for two years, including holding a meeting in New York, about a relationship that the defendant described in a grant application as a partnership. Eventually, the defendant sold its products to plaintiff. When a problem arose, the defendant went to New York for another meeting with plaintiff, at which the two parties also discussed an ongoing business relationship and future opportunities between Vayu and SUNY Stony Brook.
According to the Court of Appeals, [t]hese facts demonstrate a clear intent by Vayu to engage purposefully in business activities within the meaning of CPLR 302 (a)(1). For two years, Vayu projected itself into the state via calls and emails with Small and others at SUNY Stony Brook that resulted in the sale. Long-arm jurisdiction is appropriately exercised over commercial actors who have used electronic and telephonic means to project themselves into New York to conduct business transactions. And, although being physically present in New York is not required, the fact that Pepper traveled to New York to meet with Small in furtherance of the ongoing business relationship is significant.
The facts in State of New York are very different from those present here. First, in this case, plaintiffs appear to concede that all of the meetings between the parties occurred in New Jersey. Second, according to the parties’ contract, plaintiffs were located in New Jersey, as was their initial point person on the transaction. Third, and not insignificantly, as defendants have noted, Pepsi is an international entity, while there is no dispute that defendants are located wholly within New Jersey.
The fact that defendants advertise their proximity to New York on their website is inadequate to establish jurisdiction in New York. As the Third Department held in an analogous case where some of its customers are New York residents and some of the products they store at defendant’s facility either come from or are shipped to New York, and where defendant mailed brochures to customers in New York and its Web site was accessible worldwide, mere solicitation of business in New York is insufficient to constitute doing business here..
Plaintiffs also direct the Court to the First Department case of Robins v. Procure Treatment Centers, Inc., 157 AD3d 606, 607, 70 N.Y.S.3d 457 (1st Dept. 2018). This case is also substantially distinguishable. In that case, the record contains a State filing in which PPM identified itself as having a principal place of business in Manhattan — tangible evidence upon which to question PPM’s claims to the contrary. Not only that, but the defendant in that case also took a much more aggressive stance on recruiting New Yorkers to its facilities in New Jersey: PPM chose and marketed its Somerset, New Jersey, location to target New York residents, touting its proximity to New York in advertising, entered into an agreement with a consortium of New York City hospitals for the referral of cancer patients for treatment at its facility, and provided the consortium’s doctors with privileges at its facility. That agreement contemplated New York doctors referring patients to a New Jersey facility, and the New York doctors practicing at the location in New Jersey.
. . .
In this action, the Court finds that the defendants did not conduct sufficient purposeful activities in New York, which bore a substantial relationship to the subject matter of this action, so as to avail themselves of the benefits and protections of New York’s laws.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).